WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3004/98 by Doeke EISMA to the Commission. The discovery of pollutants indicated as flame retardants in sperm whales which normally stay and feed in deep waters
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: EISMA, European Parliament
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, health risk, marine mammal, marine pollution, pollution control, public health, toxic substance













EUR-Lex - 91998E3004 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3004

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3004/98 by Doeke EISMA to the Commission. The discovery of pollutants indicated as flame retardants in sperm whales which normally stay and feed in deep waters  


Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0066 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3004/98by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission(8 October 1998)Subject: The discovery of pollutants indicated as flame retardants in sperm whales which normally stay and feed in deep waters1. Is the Commission familiar with flame retardants, a group of chemical compounds which are used at relatively high concentrations in electronic equipment such as computers and television sets?2. Is the Commission familiar with a Dutch study (published in Nature of 2 July 1998) showing that two chemical groups of flame retardants, polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDEs), are present in sperm whales which normally stay and feed in deep water, indicating that these compounds have reached deep ocean waters?3. Does the Commission acknowledge that these substances are very similar in behaviour and toxicity to well-known environmental contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), substances which are banned in the EU Member States? If not, why?4. Does the Commission agree that the results of this study indicate that these flame retardants, which enter the atmosphere, rivers and sea waters, probably through insufficient burning in waste incinerators, are accumulating in the environment at such speed that they could become a serious threat to the health of humans and animals if no measures are taken quickly? If not, why?5. If so, can the Commission indicate what measures it will take to prevent further accumulation of these toxic substances in the environment?6. Would the Commission be willing to ban these groups of flame retardants?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission(1 December 1998)The Commission is familiar with flame retardants. Indeed, the use of certain brominated flame retardants in certain textile articles was prohibited many years ago. Directive 79/663(1) prohibits use of Tris(2,3 - dibromopropyl) phosphate and Directive 83/264(2) prohibits the use of Tris-aziridinyl phosphinoxide and all ten polybrominated biphenyls for this purpose. In addition, the Commission proposed already in 1991 (COM(91) 7 final)(3) to ban the marketing of all ten brominated diphenyl ethers. However, the Parliament chose not to give an opinion during the first reading and the Commission decided eventually in 1995 to withdraw its proposal. Nevertheless, the flame retardant industry has since made a voluntary commitment to the Orgaisation for economic cooperation and development to better control the use of the brominated diphenyl ethers.Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93(4) on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances provides a general programme to assess the risks of chemicals and to identify the needs for risk reduction. Currently the polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) are not being produced in Europe in high volumes, whereas under this Regulation three polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are being assessed (Bis(pentabromophenyl) ether (DBDPE) (1163-19 - 5) Rapporteur: France and United Kingdom, Diphenyl ether, octabromo derivate (OBDPE) (32536-52 - 0) Rapporteur: France and United Kingdom, Diphenyl ether, pentabromo derivate (PBDPE) (32534-81 - 9) Rapporteur: United Kingdom). The parts of the risk assessment reports related to the environment of all three substances have been discussed and agreed by the competent technical committee. The conclusions were that for the atmospheric ecosystems, no need was seen for further risk reduction measures. For the aquatic, sediment and soil ecosystems, there was a need for additional eco-toxicity testing in order to establish the extent of the potential risk and thereby address the potential need and extent of further risk reduction measures. For the accumulation of the chemicals through the food chain and their potential effects on higher food chain species, it was concluded that under normal use and disposal practices for DBDPE and OBDPE no further risk reduction measures are needed. A potential concern was indicated for PBDPE. In order to clarify this concern further information on releases of the chemical from specific uses has been requested. Discussions within the competent technical committee on the assessment of risks to human health are currently in progress. The recent information, including the study published in Nature, has been forwarded to the Member State rapporteur for evaluation and possible inclusion.There are similarities between these compounds and DDT and PCBs. However, there are also differences. The three compounds are all very lipophilic, but only PBDPE is being considered for classification as dangerous to the environment. A testing programme has been recommended to further define the toxicity profiles of all three chemicals in relation to potential human health effects.The risk assessment reports conclude that emissions of the flame retardants from incineration processes will be near zero. The potential pathways leading to environmental concentrations of the three brominated flame retardants are currently under investigation by the technical committee. When the risk assessment reports have been finalised, and, if necessary, the relevant results submitted to the scientific committee for toxicity, eco-toxicity and environment, risk reduction measures will be recommended in those areas where concern has been indicated. This will take into account the potential concern for both humans and the environment.(1) OJ L 197, 3.8.1979.(2) OJ L 147, 6.6.1983.(3) OJ C 46, 22.2.1991.(4) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.